Need more bad DMs?

[kinem]

So, people who've tried the 5E playtest have enjoyed it.

Also, many of the playtest DMs are highly experienced and skilled.

Does that mean the system is good, or would any game run by those DMs be enjoyable?

 

[Nagol]

Very likely, the DMs were experienced, very comfortable with the material, and coached -- it's what I would do for such an event.

They could probably run a recipe book enjoyably. "Look out! Here come the Blanc Manges and they've got chocolate sprinkles!"

 

[Oni]

That would be evidenced pretty simply by whether the players and GM were engaging or avoiding the system I would imagine. It's been my experience that normally good GMs make bad systems work largely by ignoring them.

Personally I'm not so interested how it handles in the hands of a bad GM, a bad GM can wreck any game, good or bad, so I don't see much point in writing toward the lowest common denominator as it often disempowers better GMs from doing what they do best. So rather than attempting to GM-proof the system, I would prefer they empower GMs to run their games how they wish while simultaneous giving guidance and advice on how to be better, rather than attempting to protect the players from them.

 

[Nagol]

That would be evidenced pretty simply by whether the players and GM were engaging or avoiding the system I would imagine. It's been my experience that normally good GMs make bad systems work largely by ignoring them.

Personally I'm not so interested how it handles in the hands of a bad GM, a bad GM can wreck any game, good or bad, so I don't see much point in writing toward the lowest common denominator as it often disempowers better GMs from doing what they do best. So rather than attempting to GM-proof the system, I would prefer they empower GMs to run their games how they wish while simultaneous giving guidance and advice on how to be better, rather than attempting to protect the players from them.

That's great advice for a published game or a publicity game (which DDXP really was), but a lousy way to run a playtest.

The designers need feedback from the groups, especially the DMs about what doesn't work well in practice and the only true way to tell is to run it. Hopefully, the open playtest is not the first chance of such feedback from an audience outside the designer circle since small groups tend to develop assumptions/blind spots quickly. I hope they've been running a larger closed playtest to look for areas in the rules that are generally ignored to improve play. Those are the areas that will need the most attention to make a good game.

Otherwise you'll likely make a game that needs to be ignored in play.

 

[Agamon]

On the other hand, there isn't a game in existence than can make playing under a bad DM fun, amiright?

 

[Nebulous]

On the other hand, there isn't a game in existence than can make playing under a bad DM fun, amiright?

Nope.

 

[Oni]

That's great advice for a published game or a publicity game (which DDXP really was), but a lousy way to run a playtest.

The designers need feedback from the groups, especially the DMs about what doesn't work well in practice and the only true way to tell is to run it. Hopefully, the open playtest is not the first chance of such feedback from an audience outside the designer circle since small groups tend to develop assumptions/blind spots quickly. I hope they've been running a larger closed playtest to look for areas in the rules that are generally ignored to improve play. Those are the areas that will need the most attention to make a good game.

Otherwise you'll likely make a game that needs to be ignored in play.

It's not really advice, so much as a statement that I would prefer that bad GMs not be the metric around which the game is calibrated. I agree wholeheartedly that the designers should get as much and widely varied feedback as they can. I'm in no way suggesting that it only be given over to a select group of highly trained GMs only to be taken for a test drive under the most favorable conditions, I was merely reacting to the title of the thread.

 

[kitsune9]

I think the DMs they had for the playtest were definitely experienced and skilled. I wouldn't want to run a playtest at DDXP without experienced or knowledgeable DM's at the tables.

 

[Nagol]

It's not really advice, so much as a statement that I would prefer that bad GMs not be the metric around which the game is calibrated. I agree wholeheartedly that the designers should get as much and widely varied feedback as they can. I'm in no way suggesting that it only be given over to a select group of highly trained GMs only to be taken for a test drive under the most favorable conditions, I was merely reacting to the title of the thread.

Yeah, defining a play experience assuming poor play pretty much guarantees a low maximum. All the hand-holds and protections put in place get in the way of the game when the group doesn't need/want them.

We won't know how they're approaching the game until we see it, unfortunately. As I said in my first post, I suspect it was a rehearsed and polished event that DMs adjustd to match their strengths. If it wasn't then shame on them! The first public appearance needs good word of mouth more than purity of experience.

 

[Osgood]

I played the play test with Monte Cook was my DM. Sadly, my group and I did not like the game play much.

I had fun because Monte is an excellent DM, but that had nothing to do with the system. I think in the hands of the average DM it would be really bad.

It is my hope that the game play will be significantly better with various rule modules, and that the play test will result in a very different game than what I played over the weekend.